I don't think this would help, unless you mean that the depth of the water would affect the severity of the weather and therefore the likelihood of sinking. And if you're thinking about the likelihood of sinking, you probably shouldn't already be in a mass tourism situation...

I was thinking that if they were limited to water no deeper than six to eight feet, it would be easier to make sure everyone got safely off the vehicle in the event that it sank.

Water consistently at that depth may be hard to come by. But then maybe so should duck rides. The alternative interpretation, to limit geometry for wave action, might also work, but to keep from adopting a Captain Hindsight approach, I’d prefer to see ducks require all passengers have a PFD in hand, maybe even donned, for over water portions with no canopies allowed.

I was thinking that if they were limited to water no deeper than six to eight feet, it would be easier to make sure everyone got safely off the vehicle in the event that it sank.

There is no water at a consistent depth of six to eight feet that would be worth going out on a boat like that in... (At least, I can't think of any bodies of water at that consistent depth that would both have DUKWs available and be worth it. You should probably be punting instead... or in a gondola perhaps... and even gondolas can handle water deeper than that.)

In her live CNN interview, Tia Coleman said emphatically that they were never told to put the life-jackets on she went on to say that when the recover the boat, all the life-jackets would still be in place which appears to be correct. Of the 17 bodies the Coastguard recovered, 0 were wearing life-jackets.

The guy who should have made this announcement survived, but I don't think he's talking to anyone.

And again, there's a difference between "never told to put the life-jackets on" and "told not to put the life-jackets on". It was a while back that I was on one of these tours (run by the same company, so probably run the same way) but I have a distinct memory of thinking "if we begin to sink, I'm grabbing one".

If the announcements said "you probably won't need these because we have a good safety record on the water, but here's where they are and here's how you use them" then that's fine. If they actively discouraged use of flotation devices unless specifically ordered to use them, that's another thing. Yes, an order to put them on should have been given, time permitting - but if there was time for those on board to come to a reasonable conclusion that they were in trouble (taking on water, surface of the water coming very close to the top edge of the boat, etc.) then the passengers should have felt authorized to use discretion and grab a life jacket.

I'm reminded of the recent incident at a Disney parade where a dragon got on fire and everyone kept on filming thinking that was supposed to happen.

To be fair, though, the Maleficent dragon in the parade breathes actual fire. We saw it last year when we visited. My father stared at it and said "if that isn't the damndest thing" as neither of us had researched the parade and neither knew if was going to do so.

But yeah, people seem to think " we're on vacation-nothing bad can happen!" which is how they end up getting gored by wild buffalo or drowning in Hawaii.

if there was time for those on board to come to a reasonable conclusion that they were in trouble (taking on water, surface of the water coming very close to the top edge of the boat, etc.) then the passengers should have felt authorized to use discretion and grab a life jacket.

I have no idea how close is normal for the surface of the water to come to the top edge of a duck boat.

And I strongly suspect that most of the people on the boat had no idea either. Bear in mind that they may never have been in a boat before; and if they had, it may have been a canoe or kayak. If the people actually running the boat didn't seem concerned, I don't see why the people riding in the boat -- barring any specific knowledge on their part about duck boats -- should have assumed that they knew more about the situation than the people whose job it was.

How long would it have been from when the boat started taking on significant water to when it flipped and/or submerged? There may well not have been enough time to reach, let alone get into, let alone get children into, the lifejackets.

To be fair, though, the Maleficent dragon in the parade breathes actual fire. We saw it last year when we visited. My father stared at it and said "if that isn't the damndest thing" as neither of us had researched the parade and neither knew if was going to do so.

Heck, the one in the "Fantasmic" show not only breathes fire, but they pour fuel in the lake prior to that moment, so the lake itself seems to catch on fire. Very impressive. (The story goes that the first time they tested this, it was more than a little traumatic for the ducks that hang out there...but they pretty quickly learned to clear the river when the show music starts up.)

I have no idea how close is normal for the surface of the water to come to the top edge of a duck boat.

And I strongly suspect that most of the people on the boat had no idea either. Bear in mind that they may never have been in a boat before; and if they had, it may have been a canoe or kayak. If the people actually running the boat didn't seem concerned, I don't see why the people riding in the boat -- barring any specific knowledge on their part about duck boats -- should have assumed that they knew more about the situation than the people whose job it was.

How long would it have been from when the boat started taking on significant water to when it flipped and/or submerged? There may well not have been enough time to reach, let alone get into, let alone get children into, the lifejackets.

I doubt it was as they were out on the water and waves were crashing against the hull that the 'captain' was standing up and saying, "No, no, don't panic, everything's fine, you won't need a life vest."

Probably more like, "Welcome aboard the duck ride! We have life vests in the overhead compartment, but don't worry, you won't be needing those [pause for laughter]."

I think the media is taking the line and running with it, giving it a more sinister implication than is warranted.

I suspect that by the time they realized they might just need life vests after all (either the crew or the passengers) they were already getting battered by waves so bad it was hard to stand up (because I, and perhaps you, certainly have been in a boat getting battered by waves, and I suspect I would have been getting seasick if I were on that thing, based on the videos I saw). By all accounts, conditions deteriorated rapidly (though predictably, given forecasts) and they (both passengers and crew) may have been in too much of a panic to have a discussion about the necessity of life vests and even if they did think about them, they may not have been able to stand to reach them safely.

The comment about not needing life vests suggests a somewhat cavalier attitude, perhaps typical of tourist attractions meant to be fun and safe with an underlying (and unrecognized) risk of danger. It suggests a lack of appreciation for how things might unfold. Whether that came from lax standards on the part of the company or some deviation from standards on the part of the 'captain' remains. I suspect the company will try to blame the 'captain' and the media is happy to play along with the line about life vests, but there's probably more blame to go around on the company. Even if the company can produce some employee manual saying "though shalt say/do X with life vests," that doesn't absolve them (disclaimer: IANAL) if they didn't pay too much attention to ensuring the manual was followed by their employees.

Yeah, this ^^^^ is my point. I'm not saying there WAS enough time to react, but being a non-swimmer who's not used to boats, I still have a real good idea when the thing I'm in is sinking. These things ride VERY low in the water, so several inches away from lapping over the edge - in a storm - is enough to tell me it's flotation device time.

If there was enough time, "they didn't tell us to put them on" is not an excuse, and I have a hard time believing crew or passengers would not be grabbing those things and telling everyone else to. If there wasn't enough time, as it seems, then it boils down to whether it was wiser to have everyone put them on as a precaution under the circumstances - but then, the circumstances probably should have told the crew not to take the vehicle into the water in the first place.

They absolutely shouldn't have taken the boat in the water, but the fact that they did led them further down the road of making the passengers think everything was safe until way too late in the game.

The life jacket comment is certainly made as a laugh line, but making a joke about it is a mistake. This is especially true if nobody on the crew is going to take back that joke when things get dire. If you joke about how life-jackets won't be needed you better be telling people when its damn well time they put life-jackets on.

This is a fault of the company and I don't doubt that they will try to throw the 'captain' under the bus. But they set him up from the beginning. He probably makes $10 an hour plus tips. The life-jackets not required line wasn't his invention. But, if he decides to take safety more serious, people have less fun and his tips go away. This is why I've never suggested that he should have been saving lives before he saved himself. He's not paid to risk his life.

What I do think the 'captain' owed the passengers was; "hey guys, we might be in trouble, get ready for the worst." And its possible that he didn't recognize that they were in that situation until it was too late. I spent a lot of time on boats. From my experience casual passengers have a wide range of responses to developing situations from crazed over-reaction to obliviousness. There's always people among them who act like there's nothing worth making a fuss about. I can't tell whether this is out of ignorance, stupidity or arrogance.

If there wasn't enough time, as it seems, then it boils down to whether it was wiser to have everyone put them on as a precaution under the circumstances - but then, the circumstances probably should have told the crew not to take the vehicle into the water in the first place.

It doesn’t seem like there was an evacuation plan in place at all. And if there was, no one triggered it. Unless the storm hit and it was 0 to 60, down they go, I can’t imagine being on a boat with passengers and kids in a building storm and not pulling out jackets and clearing exits.

I’ve been on a couple boats over the last year with my kids, and they’ve been required by each company to wear life jackets every time. Clear days, no storm warnings. Adults, no, but we were given the option. Never once have I been told “you won’t need them.”

I echo Hans Off's comments - although the storm wasn't exactly unexpected. By the way, while the safety measures should have included putting the jackets on, there really isn't any "clearing exits" to do. These vehicles are basically just small city buses that can float - two rows of two-person seats, about 40 passengers who stay seated. Exit would likely be out the relatively large windows.

Coleman, one of the 14 survivors, said passengers were told there was a storm coming before the trip. The captain mentioned the life jackets before they went on the lake but said, "you won't need them so we didn't grab them," Coleman said Saturday.
"The captain did say something about life jackets. He said, 'Above you are the life jackets, there are three sizes, but you won't need them,'" Coleman said Saturday night.
She told CNN affiliate KOLR: "When that boat is found, all those life jackets are going to be on there because nobody pulled one off."

The relatively large windows were covered by vinyl windows, at least on one side of the vessel, when it was recovered.

The National Transportation Safety Board announced Friday the completion of the initial review of the digital video recorder system recovered from the DUKW “Stretch Boat 7” that sank July 19 near Branson, Missouri.

Unless something comes out at the upcoming Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation meeting, or the NTSB issues an urgent safety recommendation or an update to the press, this will likely be the last the NTSB has to say about the accident until either a) the public docket is opened, b) the NTSB holds a public hearing (which, frankly, isn't likely), and/or c) the final report is issued.